Department of Environmental Affairs on its 2016 Annual Performance Plan; Performing Animals Protection Amendment Bill [B9B-2015]: adopted

Meeting report

Briefing by the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) on its Strategic Plan, Annual Performance and Budget Vote (Vote 27)
The delegation comprised of amongst others Mr Riaan Aucamp, Acting Chief Operations Officer; Ms Limpho Makotoko newly appointed Chief Operations Officer, Mr Ishaam Abader Deputy Director General: Legal, Authorisations and Enforcement; Dr Monde Mayekiso Deputy Director General: Oceans and Coasts; and Ms Judy Beaumont Deputy Director General: Climate Change and Air Quality. The DEA Director General Ms Nosipho Ngcaba joined the meeting a little while after its commencement due to other engagements.

Ms Makotoko undertook the briefing. The DEA Strategic Plan 2014 – 2019 was still the same and the DEA’s Annual Performance Plan was aligned with it. The Committee was provided with insight into the 2016/17 Annual Performance Plan of the DEA. Members were given an overview of the planned performance of the DEA in terms of its various Programmes.

Administration Programme
On having equitable and sound corporate governance the baseline and 2016/17 target for compliance with key legislation and corporate governance requirements was set at 100%. On having an adequate, appropriately skilled, transformed and diverse workforce the baseline for the DEA’s vacancy rate had been set at 10.4% with its 2016/17 target being 9.5%. With the intention of having an improved profile, support and enhanced capacity for the environment sector a baseline was set to have 126 media statements/speeches issued. The 2016/17 target was however set at having 140 statements/speeches issued.
 
Legal Authorisations, Compliance & Enforcement Programme
On having improved compliance with environmental legislation by effective compliance the baseline for administrative enforcement actions resulting in compliance was set at 83%, the 2016/17 target having been set lower at 70%. On officials trained in environmental compliance and enforcement the baseline was set at 392 with the 2016/17 target being 300. On the number of interventions implemented in support of the integrated strategic management of rhino populations the baseline was set at four and the target for 2016/17 was one.

Oceans and Coast Programme
On threats to environmental quality and integrity managed the baseline was set to have a National Coastal Management Programme Implementation Plan developed. The target set for 2016/17 was to have a Draft Assessment Report on the Coast developed and to have a national guideline for coastal management lines finalised. On strengthened knowledge, science and policy interface no baseline had been set for ocean and coast research, survey and monitoring projects. The target for 2016/17 was to have a SA implementation plan for undertaking International Indian Ocean Expedition cruises finalised and to have a National Pollution Laboratory Report on the state of water quality on an identified site in the Eastern Cape coastal area produced.
  
Climate Change and Air Quality Management Programme
On a coherent and aligned multi-sector regulatory system and decision support across government the baseline was set to have a national climate change response policy. The target for 2016/17 was to have a Draft National Climate Change Response Bill published for public comment. On threats to environmental quality and integrity managed the idea was to have a number of climate change response policy interventions implemented. The baseline figure was set to have 53 projects and the target for 2016/17 was to have four quarterly Green Fund Implementation Reports prepared. On minimising negative impacts on health and wellbeing the idea was to have a National Air Quality Indicator. The baseline figure was to have the indicator at 0.83 and the target set for 2016/17 was to have it at 1.25.

Biodiversity and Conservation Programme
For a coherent and aligned multi-sector regulatory system and decision support across government there was a need for a number of legislative tools to be developed and implemented to ensure conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. One initiative was to have a baseline set for a Draft Biodiversity Offsets Policy. The target set for 2016/17 was to have a National Biodiversity Offsets Policy approved. On ecosystems conserved, managed and sustainably used the baseline percentage was set at 11.3% on land under conservation with the target for 2016/17 being 12.2%.

Environmental Programmes
On ecosystems conserved, managed and sustainably used the baseline was set at 115 for the number of wetlands under rehabilitation with the target for 2016/17 set at 132. On the number of kilometres of accessible coastline cleaned the baseline and target for 2016/17 was both set at 2113. On threats to environment quality and integrity managed the baseline set for the number of environmental monitors deployed in conservation areas was set at 1102 with the 2016/17 target being 1441. On the targeting of invasive alien species, the baseline was set at 82 with the target for 2016/17 being 70.
  
Chemicals and Waste Management Programme
 On coherent and aligned multi-sector regulatory system & decision support across government there was a need have a number of chemicals and waste management instruments developed and implemented. One such initiative was to have a problem statement developed and used as a baseline whilst the 2016/17 target set was to have Waste Import/Export Regulations finalised. A further initiative was to have a Draft Chemicals Management Bill developed with the target for 2016/17 being to have a Chemicals Management Strategy developed.

The briefing document also contained information on the DEA’s service delivery improvement plan for 2016/17 as well as information on its DEA Strategic Risks and 2016/17 Mitigation Plan.

Discussion
The Chairperson asked on air quality whether there were consequences on non-compliance. He was concerned that researchers had left the employ of the Department. Why had the researchers left? He asked what plan the DEA had in place to retain skills.

Mr Abader noted that many of the questions asked by Members related to compliance and enforcement.

Dr Mayekiso responded that the DEA was not concerned about the loss of some of its researchers. The researchers still at the DEA would replace the capacity that had been lost. However, the younger researchers did not have the international networks that the more experienced researchers had. He did note that younger researchers published as individuals whereas older researchers published as teams. Younger researchers were being mentored by retired researchers. The DEA did its best to secure international finance to support junior researchers.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) said the briefing covered many things that Members had brought up in the past. She referred to slide 15 and asked why some of the targets were set lesser than the baselines set. Did the DEA have the staff and the budget to meet the targets set? She pointed out that legal authorisations impacted upon different provinces. On slide 18 she asked what the timeframe was for the MPA Effectiveness Research Study to be conducted. On slide 19 she asked in what places were moorings deployed. On slide 20 she asked whether the National Pollution Laboratory Report on the state of water quality on the identified site in the Eastern Cape would be done at different sites other than the site mentioned. What criteria were used in choosing sites? How did the DEA identify sites for the measurement of pollution? She referred to slide 24 and asked what the two provinces were where a Climate Change Risk Analysis was to be conducted. On slide 25 which spoke about the DEA’s air quality plans she asked whether the required capacity and budget was available to meet them. She asked what the consequences were when there was non-compliance with air quality regulations for 2-3 years. She also asked what happened when there was non-compliance when landfill site inspections were done. The concern was that landfill sites usually fell under local government which in most instances lacked funds. She noted that import and export regulations needed to be finalised as they impacted upon regulations on waste management in SA.

Mr Abader, on the DEA’s capacity, explained that there were times when baselines and targets did not speak to one another. The DEA had to reduce its targets due to capacity and budgetary constraints. On compliance, the DEA had sufficient resources to deal with what it had to do. He explained that where there was non-compliance the DEA served an administrative notice on the persons who were not complying. It informed the perpetrators to comply and on what they needed to do. If this was unsuccessful then the DEA proceeded with criminal enforcement which could lead to court action. 

Dr Mayekiso said timeframes for MPA effectiveness were difficult to establish. It depended on the lifespan of the species that was being monitored. Other factors also impacted upon species. Surveys were done in priority areas. There would be three surveys within the next year. On the locations of moorings, he explained that there were moorings in the Atlantic Ocean moving towards Brazil. There were also moorings in the Indian Ocean close to Madagascar, Mozambique and Northern KwaZulu-Natal. 

Ms Beaumont the DEA did vulnerability assessments and risk analysis for each province. Thereafter the province would outline its adaptation strategy. The DEA was in the process of finalising its adaptation strategies for the Limpopo, North West and Mpumalanga Provinces. She noted that the Air Quality Act did set out offences and penalties. There were extensive processes of investigations.

Ms Ngcaba stated that waste import regulations would be presented to the Committee. SA was a signatory to the Basel Convention. There was a permitting process in place. Often times goods were imported into SA and not used. Thereafter the goods became waste. On slide 20 she noted that there were Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the Walter Sisulu and Nelson Mandela Universities. There were criteria that were used in the choosing of sites. On capacity and resources the DEA had been able to do enforcement activities with its current capacity. The budget of the DEA had been cut over three years. The DEA was going through its human resources plan on how to cut down its personnel numbers. Perhaps vacancies would also not be filled. The DEA simply did not have enough capacity and resources.  The DEA did support municipalities where it could.

Mr J Julius (DA, Gauteng) asked where the DEA fitted in on environmental assessments on asset mine drainage. There had to be DEA collaboration with other departments on asset mine drainage. Asset mine drainage was a huge problem on the West Rand in Gauteng. Fauna and flora was severely affected.

Mr Abader, on asset mine drainage, said collaborative work had been done initially. Asset mine drainage fell within the mandate of the Department of Water Affairs and there were interventions that were undertaken. The DEA authorised the interventions from an environmental impact perspective. 

Ms Ngcaba emphasised that asset mine drainage was a Department of Water Affairs responsibility. Water was a national function. The DEA did cooperate with the Department of Water Affairs. The DEA did do environmental authorisations for the Department of Water Affairs. Proactively the DEA in terms of current legislation was setting norms and standards on the rehabilitation of mining areas.

Mr C Smit (DA, Limpopo) pointed out that municipalities were huge contributors to water pollution due to their poor planning on sewerage. Did the DEA have a strategy in place to deal with the issue as water was a scarce commodity in SA? The South African Police Services (SAPS) did not know how to handle pollution related cases. He had opened up a case against a municipal manager of a municipality for polluting. The solution was perhaps to have specific legislation. The SAPS personnel could also perhaps be trained to deal with environmental cases. He referred to the fact that air quality management plans were to be implemented in the Highveld and at Waterberg-Bojanala. It so happened that the Kusile and Medupi Power Stations were located there. He did not understand why these power stations were located in areas where there were shortages of water.  

Mr Abader stated that water pollution also fell within the mandate of the Department of Water Affairs. The DEA assisted the Department of Water Affairs on water pollution matters. He understood that the SAPS lacked the ability to deal with environmental issues. However, the DEA did undertake a great deal of pre-investigations. The DEA would look into the cases of water pollution. Training on environmental issues was required for SAPS members, prosecutors and wherever else it was needed. 

Ms Beaumont noted that the three priority areas were the Vaal, the Highveld and the Waterberg. She explained that the Kusile and Medupi Power Stations were efficient power stations. Eskom had installed fabric filters to deal with ash. Other measures were also put in place.

Mr A Singh (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) asked whether SA was winning the war on rhino poaching. If progress was being made what was being done differently compared to past efforts. He asked whether the training of educators on waste management filtered down to learners. What were the turnaround times for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) applications?

Mr Abader noted that the Minister of Environmental Affairs had announced that rhino poaching figures for the second quarter had shown a decrease. Various interventions that were put in place. There was thus a slight improvement. The DEA was bringing provinces together to share knowledge and intelligence on rhino poaching. On EIA applications he pointed out that the DEA’s Outcome 10 Report had stated that the target was set at 98%. The actual turnaround times were close to the targeted figure and could have even reached the target. The DEA was doing a great deal better than what it did a few years ago.

Ms Ngcaba pointed out that the DEA had a Rhino Management Strategy. There was collaboration with law enforcement. It was correct that rhino poaching numbers had decreased. Up until the present there had been 206 arrests. There were matters that were before the courts. There was a conviction rate of 78%.

The Chairperson in the interests of time asked that Members forward further questions in writing to the Committee Secretary to which the DEA could provide written responses.

He placed Reports of the Committee on Budget Vote 27: Department of Environmental Affairs and Budget Vote 29: Department of Mineral Resources before the Committee for consideration and they were adopted unamended.

Performing Animals Protection Amendment Bill [B9B – 2015]
The Chairperson asked the State Law Adviser’s Office to enlighten the Committee on where the process was on the Bill.

Ms Yolandi van Aswegen, State Law Advisers Office, stated that previously the Committee’s summary of all submissions received had been considered. No real amendments had been proposed in the submissions received. Concerns raised in the submissions had been addressed. The welfare of animals should be considered with the Animal Protection Act. She highlighted that one of the submissions called for the National SPCA to be able to have access to premises in order to carry out investigations. She stressed that the Animal Protection Act and the Animal Performing Act should be read together. Many of the submissions received were covered by reading the two Acts together.
 
The Chairperson asked the Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) to comment.

Mr Mortimer Mannya, Acting Director General Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF), apologised on behalf of the DAFF for not attending the Committee’s meeting the previous week.

Mr Mooketsa Ramasodi, Deputy Director General: Agricultural Production, Health & Food Safety said DAFF welcomed the comments made on the Performing Animals Protection Amendment Bill. On sections 2 and 3 amendments the DAFF would look at constitutional issues. The DAFF would also look at the broader Animal Welfare Act. The DAFF needed to do policy work on animal welfare issues. The Animal Welfare Act would amalgamate the Animal Protection Act and the Performing Animals Act.

Dr Moshe Mathonsi, Acting Deputy Director, pointed out that the Bill was an old bill. The DAFF could not redraft the Bill to give overall animal protection. It was only due to the court order that had been given that the present Bill was in the form that it was. The intention had been to repeal the Animal Protection Act and the Performing Animals Protection Act. The process was to have comprehensive and inclusive animal welfare activities. He conceded that there were gaps. The Animal Protection Act spoke to cruelty issues. The Act was still very effective in this regard.

Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape) stated that given the fact that the Bill was as a result of a court decision it had to be processed within a certain timeframe as per the deadline given by the court. Parliament intended to adjourn on 27 May 2016 and would only reconvene in August 2016. What was the implication of this for the Bill?

Ms Phumelele Ngema, Parliamentary Legal Adviser, noted that the court had given up until the first week of August 2016 to finalise the Bill. This deadline was already an extension of an extension. She said that it would be extremely difficult to ask the court for another extension. It would be a huge problem if the Bill was not finalised by the deadline.  

Adoption of Bill
The Chairperson placed the Bill for consideration before the Committee and it was adopted unamended. The DA however reserved its position on the Bill.

The meeting was adjourned.